5.  The applicant, Mr F.K., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Šentjur.
6.  The applicant was married to I.V. On 19 August 2001 their daughter, A., was born.
7.  On 28 November 2002 the Celje District Court granted the couple a divorce and awarded I.V. custody of A. The applicant obtained contact rights.
8.  On 3 March 2003 the applicant and I.V. concluded an enforceable agreement on contact arrangements at the Laško Welfare Centre, in which they agreed that the applicant and A. would have the right to spend every second weekend together (but only half of the weekend for the first three months).
9.  On 24 November 2004 the applicant and I.V. reached another agreement whereby they slightly modified the scope of contact.
10.  Beginning on 2 January 2005, I.V. was allegedly preventing contact between the applicant and A. As a result, on 30 January 2005, the applicant lodged a request for enforcement of the contact arrangements agreement of 3 March 2003 and 24 November 2004 with the Laško Administrative Unit. On 17 March 2005, the applicant’s lawyer again requested enforcement of the contact arrangements agreement of 3 March 2003. The enforcement request was forwarded to the Laško Welfare Centre.
11.  On 1 April 2005 the Laško Welfare Centre was informed that, on 11 January 2005 I.V. had lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for sexual abuse of A. (see paragraph 57 below). For this reason, the Laško Welfare Centre on the same day stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
12.  Further to the applicant’s appeal, on 9 November 2005 the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs quashed the decision of the Laško Welfare Centre whereby the proceedings were stayed and decided to terminate the proceedings. It found that the contact agreement of 3 March 2003 was no longer enforceable, because the contact arrangements had been amended on 20 April 2005 by the Celje District Court in civil non-contentious proceedings (see paragraph 14 below).
13.  On 13 April 2005 I.V. lodged a request with the Celje District Court for amendment of the contact arrangements determined by the Laško Welfare Centre on 3 March 2003. Referring to the alleged sexual abuse of A. by the applicant, she sought less frequent contact between the two and requested that contact take place under supervision by a social worker. She also requested that an interim measure be adopted in this respect.
14.   The Celje District Court found that on 23 February 2005 the Laško Welfare Centre had scheduled a meeting at which the applicant and I.V. had agreed that in March 2005 contact would take place under supervision. Another such meeting had been scheduled for 23 March 2005, but the applicant had failed to attend and no further agreement had been reached. Given that the applicant was suspected of sexual abuse, the court found it reasonable to uphold I.V.’s request in part. As a result, on 20 April 2005, it ordered the interim measure sought, pending the outcome of the proceedings. According to the court’s decision, contact was to be authorised once a week for an hour and a half, under supervision.
15.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant objected to the above decision, claiming that the court, by ordering the interim measure in question, had breached the principle of presumption of innocence and had not respected the adversarial nature of the proceedings. In his objection, he also requested that these proceedings be joined to the contentious proceedings (P 327/2005 – see below).
16.  On 17 May 2005 the court held a hearing. Subsequently, it dismissed the applicant’s objection as unfounded.
17.  The applicant appealed.
18.  On 10 August 2005 the Celje Higher Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision on the interim measure.
19.  On 24 March 2005, since I.V. was allegedly preventing the applicant from having contact with A., the applicant, on his own behalf and on behalf of A., lodged a claim with the Celje District Court whereby he sought sole custody of A. and child maintenance. He also proposed that contact rights should be granted to I.V. In the alternative, the applicant requested that regular contact be granted between himself and A. and also between A. and other relatives. He further requested, also on A.’s behalf, that an interim measure be taken in respect of all his requests. Lastly, the applicant requested exemption from paying the court fees.
20.   On 29 March and 7 April 2005 the court asked the applicant to complete his request for an exemption from obligation to pay the court fees. After the request was completed, on 8 April 2005, the court upheld it on 19 April 2005.
21.  Meanwhile, on 14 April 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions, urging the court to order the interim measure sought on 24 March 2005.
22.  On 7 June 2005 I.V. informed the court that the applicant was suspected of committing a criminal offence of sexual assault on a minor under the age of fifteen (see paragraph 58 below).
23.  The court scheduled a hearing for 9 June 2005. The hearing was not held, on account of a request from the Administrative Court to examine the file (see paragraphs 52-56 below).
24.  On 15 and 18 July 2005 the court requested the Šentjur Welfare Centre to deliver an opinion in the case. The request was transferred to the Laško Welfare Centre, which delivered the opinion on 7 September 2005.
25.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions in which he partly amended his alternative request for an interim measure, seeking, in the event that the court did not grant him custody, that A. be placed in foster care, since there was a risk of her being sexually abused by I.V.’s new partner. He requested, in the event of refusal of the above request, that I.V.’s partner be forbidden to have contact with A.
26.  On 24 November 2005 the court issued a decision in which it joined the non-contentious proceedings (Pn 188/2005, see above) to these proceedings. It also dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure on all points.
27.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the Celje Higher Court, on 21 December 2005, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted it for re-examination, finding that the decision had not been sufficiently reasoned as far as the applicant was concerned. It also found that A. had not been adequately represented in the proceedings, as there was a risk of conflict of interest. Subsequently, on 11 January 2006, a lawyer was appointed as A.’s special representative.
28.  On 21 March 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing in which the applicant and I.V. were heard and an expert in clinical psychology was appointed. However, the appointed expert fell ill and thus could not proceed with the examination.
29.  On 9 May 2006 the Administrative Court again requested to examine the case file. The court sent photocopies of the file on 15 May 2006.
30.  On 5 June 2006 the court appointed another expert in psychology in order to determine, among other things, whether it was likely that A. had been sexually abused and whether the applicant had paedophile tendencies. She was also asked to determine whether both parents possessed the personal qualities essential for raising a child.
31.  On 14 June 2006 the applicant requested that the appointed expert be relieved of her duties.
32.  On 4 July 2006 the court appointed a new expert, but the latter refused to take the case, stating that she would be absent for a long period of time. She was relieved of her duties by a court decision of 4 September 2006. On the same day, the court appointed the Commission for Expert Opinions at Ljubljana University (“the Expert Commission”) to draw up relevant expert opinions.
33.  The two experts appointed by the Expert Commission examined the applicant, A. and I.V. They observed that A. did not show any signs of sexual abuse or trauma. They also noted that both parents had the appropriate qualities for raising a child. In addition, the expert in psychology observed no signs of sexual deviance or peculiarity in the applicant’s behaviour. The court received the report on 9 January 2007 after sending a reminder to the experts on 18 December 2006.
34.  On 11 January 2007 the court urged the criminal court to speed up the proceedings.
35.  Relying on the experts’ opinions, on 12 February 2007, the applicant lodged preliminary submissions, seeking unsupervised and more frequent contact. A.’s special representative objected to the proposal for the court to issue the requested interim decision since, in her opinion, the expert could not indubitably rule out the alleged sexual abuse. I.V. also objected to the interim measure.
36.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) in order to accelerate the proceedings.
37.  On 30 March 2007, after hearing the applicant and I.V. and relying on experts’ opinions, the court issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an interim measure. It stated that contact was regulated by the interim measure of 20 April 2005 issued in the non-contentious proceedings (see paragraph 14 above) and that it was in the best interests of the child to maintain supervised visits, as the applicant was still suspected of child abuse. It also said that, albeit carried out under supervision, these visits allowed the emotional tie between the applicant and his daughter to be maintained. In addition, it terminated the proceedings in respect of A.’s request for an interim measure, since her special representative had withdrawn it. Finally, the court said that, in the particular circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, the necessary conditions for issuing the requested interim order had not been met.
38.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant appealed against this decision. His appeal was dismissed by the Celje Higher Court on 6 June 2007. The Celje Higher Court considered that the material legal content of civil proceedings differed from the one in the criminal proceedings. As a result, the rejecting of the applicant’s request for an interim measure cannot constitute a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence. However, the fact that criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for sexually abusing his own daughter could not have been overlooked by the first-instance court when deciding on the scope of the contact. It added that the first-instance court had been correct in deciding that, on the basis of experts’ opinions, it could not be established with certainty whether a decision to immediately grant unsupervised contact would be in the child’s best interest.
39.  Meanwhile, on 13 April 2007 the president of the first-instance court, apparently in response to the supervisory appeal of 2 March 2007, informed the applicant that the court had given a decision within four months of receipt of the supervisory appeal, namely on 30 March 2007 (see paragraph 37 above).
40.  Subsequently, on 10 July 2007, the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline under the 2006 Act, which was rejected as unfounded on 19 July 2007.
41.  On 23 August 2007 the Administrative Court again requested to examine the case file.
42.  On 28 September 2007 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions stating that contact had been prevented on twenty occasions between 2 January and 1 September 2007.
43.  On 18 October 2007 the court held a hearing at which the applicant and I.V. were heard. At 11.35 am the judge adjourned the hearing, since a hearing in the criminal proceedings was scheduled at 12 noon the same day.
44.  On 19 October 2007 the court requested the transcript of the hearing held on 18 October 2007 in the criminal proceedings.
45.  On 16 November 2007, since the applicant had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 74 below), he lodged preliminary written submissions requesting the court to immediately adopt an interim measure in order to ensure unsupervised contact between him and his daughter.
46.  Also on 16 November 2007 the court issued a decision concerning the expert’s fees.
47.  The hearing scheduled for 14 December 2007 was called off on account of other commitments of the expert in psychology. It was rescheduled for 29 January 2008. However, that hearing was not held, since the applicant’s representative was absent on that day.
48.  Meanwhile, on 15 January 2008 the applicant lodged two sets of preliminary written submissions.
49.  On 28 January 2008 the court requested the Celje Higher Court to examine as a priority the appeal lodged by the District Prosecutor in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 75 below) as the fact that those proceedings were pending constituted an obstacle to the civil proceedings.
50.  On 17 April 2008 the court held a hearing. The parties concluded an enforceable court settlement concerning the contact rights. This was after the judgment acquitting the applicant had become final (see paragraph 78 below). Subsequently, on 23 April 2008 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure of 16 November 2007 (see paragraph 45 above).
51.  On 18 December 2008 the applicant lodged a just satisfaction claim under the 2006 Act, which was dismissed on 4 February 2009 as the State Attorney’s Office considered that the conditions set for reaching a friendly settlement had not been met in the applicant’s case.
52.  On 18 May 2005, the applicant, on his own behalf and on behalf of A., brought an action before the Administrative Court, Celje Unit against the Celje District Court for breach of the principle of procedural economy and expedition of proceedings and the constitutional right to trial without undue delay, in connection with the contentious civil proceedings instituted on 24 March 2005 (see paragraph 19 above). He claimed just satisfaction for the damages sustained in this respect.
53.  On 14 June 2005 the Administrative Court dismissed the action as unfounded.
54.  The applicant appealed on 18 July 2005.
55.  On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance decision. The case was remitted for re-examination in the part concerning the applicant. The Supreme Court further rejected the part of the decision concerning A.
56.  On 7 September 2007 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s action, as the Celje District Court had already decided in the case (see paragraphs 37 and 38 above).
57.  On 11 January 2005 I.V. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging sexual abuse of A.
58.  On 16 March 2005 the Celje District Public Prosecutor lodged a request for a criminal investigation on the basis of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence of sexual assault on a minor under the age of fifteen.
59.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against I.V. for providing false information with the effect of preventing him from having contact with A. The Celje District Public Prosecutor dismissed this complaint as premature on 23 May 2005, and no charges were brought against I.V.
60.  Meanwhile, on 26 April and 18 July 2005 the applicant urged the Celje District Court to open a criminal investigation without delay in order to determine his innocence and, as a result, ensure regular contact between him and his daughter, which had been restricted by the court decision of 20 April 2005 (see paragraph 14 above) on account of the criminal complaint lodged against the applicant.
61.  On 9 September 2005, after questioning the applicant, the investigating judge decided to open a criminal investigation.
62.  On 8 November 2005 the investigating judge heard I.V. and her new partner. The same day the judge appointed two experts in order to determine the overall state of mind of both, the applicant and his daughter. The first expert submitted his report on 7 December 2005 and the second one on 16 December 2005.
63.  On 10 November 2005 the judge in the civil proceedings requested the court to send the criminal file for examination. The file was returned on 22 November 2005.
64.  On 8 December 2005 and 10 January 2006 the applicant submitted his defence in writing.
65.  On 27 March 2006 the applicant was indicted for the criminal offence of sexual abuse of a minor under fifteen.
66.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant submitted his additional defence in writing and urged the court to hold a hearing.
67.  On 5 June 2006 the judge in the civil proceedings again requested to examine the criminal file. The file was sent back to the criminal court on 4 September 2006.
68.  On 21 February 2007 the applicant again submitted his defence in writing.
69.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the 2006 Act in order to accelerate the proceedings. The supervisory appeal was dismissed on 23 March 2007 since the applicant had not been a party to the proceedings. However, it seems that the court wrongly examined the supervisory appeal under proceedings number P 78/2006 instead of K 78/2006. On 10 July 2007 the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline. On 13 July 2007 the Higher Court decided that the applicant’s motion for a deadline should be considered by the district court as a supervisory appeal. However, this remedy remained unanswered until 22 January 2009, when the president of the district court dismissed it.
70.  Meanwhile, on 20 March 2007 the judge in the civil proceedings again requested to examine the file, which was sent back to the criminal court on 16 August 2007.
71.  The hearing scheduled for 19 September 2007 was called off on account of flooding in the presiding judge’s home town.
72.  On 11 October 2007 the court held a hearing at which evidence was heard from several witnesses and experts. The applicant was also heard.
73.  On 15 October 2007 the judge in the civil proceedings again requested to examine the case file.
74.  After the hearing held on 18 October 2007, the court delivered a judgment acquitting the applicant.
75.  On 22 November 2007 the District Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal.
76.  On 12 December 2007 the court gave two decisions concerning the experts’ fees.
77.  On 15 January 2008 the applicant sought reimbursement of the costs and expenses he had incurred in the proceedings.
78.  On 4 March 2008 the Celje Higher Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 March 2008.
79.  On 8 April 2008 the presiding judge decided on costs and expenses. The applicant appealed against that decision. The interlocutory-proceedings panel quashed that decision and remitted it for re-examination. On 22 December 2008 additional costs were awarded to the applicant.
80.  In parallel, on 17 May 2005, the applicant, on his own behalf and on behalf of A., brought an action before the Administrative Court, Celje Unit against the Celje District Court for breach of the principle of procedural economy and expedition of proceedings and the constitutional right to trial without undue delay, in connection with the above criminal proceedings. He claimed just satisfaction for the damages sustained in this respect.
81.  On 14 June 2005 the Administrative Court dismissed the action as unfounded, since the charges against the applicant had been brought only two months before the action was lodged; hence the relevant period was not in breach of the reasonable-time requirement.
82.  The applicant appealed.
83.  On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance decision. The case was remitted for re-examination in the part concerning the applicant. The Supreme Court further rejected the part of the decision concerning A.
84.  On 4 April 2006 the Administrative court dismissed the remaining part of the action concerning the applicant.